John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I regret that we are considering on the final day of the session legislation which, while technical in nature and not requiring a great deal of debate, demonstrates a lack of foresight. I have been very critical of the manner in which the Government processes legislation. We had an example of the Government's approach when on one day last week, 100 amendments were introduced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as well as amendments to amend the original amendments. Such chaos is the result of arrogance and complacency by those who believe they can legislate in this manner because they know best. Unfortunately, there are repercussions in the long run.

Legislation requires lengthy consideration as one must examine it from every possible angle. As there will always be areas we overlook, we undertake what ought to be an exhaustive process of examining a Bill line by line to reduce our level and rate of fallibility. While it is a thankless task in which there are very few votes, it is what we are here to do as legislators. I regret the trend in the Government's approach which is another example of why it must be got rid of. When a Government has been in office too long, it develops a significant comfort zone and believes it can behave in a certain way. That is the root of the current complacency.

The Government does not come up to scratch in the area of accountability either. We are here to hold the Government to account and ask questions in the House to which we expect honest answers. Last week, I asked the Minister for Health and Children a Priority Question on nursing homes which was taken by the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power. The Minister of State promised that he would provide me at a later stage with the names of nursing homes which have been found to be deficient. He said he would give me the answers with no problem and that it was not his job to protect nursing homes. I have since had to pursue the HSE.

I was first told the executive's computers were down, which is a matter to which I will revert when I address claims of national and international recognition for good e-Government. When the computer problem had been solved, I was told there were legal issues which it took the relevant staff two and a half days to consider. In the meantime, I made phone call after phone call but got no joy. Finally, the HSE reverted to me with the announcement that it was legally impossible to give me the information I sought, despite the assurance from the Minister of State in the House that it would prove to be no problem. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, if this constitutes accountability and an example of what it is we are here to do. Need one ask oneself why we have tribunals?

The Government lauds itself on coming up to scratch in the provision of great e-Government and the facilitation of participation by people in the roll-out of the system. We saw the fiasco which resulted when it rolled out the system for electronic voting. The website for civil registration in Britain is a useful example and the real model the Government should consider. One can use the site to have a death certificate sent out within five days, which is an example of the rapidity of the service. I am dying to see — no pun intended — how the legislation works in effect as the precedents are not encouraging.

While we endorse the amendment in the name of Deputy McManus, the Opposition supports this sensible Bill. Having said that, it is important for the Government to take greater care when legislating. We are not here to put obstacles in the Minister's way for the sake of it, but we would like a basic standard of decency when dealing with the Opposition in terms of accountability. At the moment it is simply not there.

See this speech in context